>> cenk: how cool was ray's rifle from earlier in the show? that was bad ass. you want to catch more "the young turks," go to youtube.com/t.m/t. iewpoint"vs wpxtnt s .ayight er rhte. >> john: the pentagon finally lifts that women in combat ban in 2013. which is kind of like having your parents finally give you that talk about the birds and the bees when you're 40. the right wing and mainstream media have been insulting hillary clinton for two decades now and the result is she's the most respected woman in the world! good work, guys. j.j. abrams has been tapped to direct "star wars" episodes seven leading fans to pray for a sequel that somehow features the lost smoke monster eating jar jar. today is the birth of the day late john belushi and gary hart
and on this date in 1984, the first apple macintosh went on sale briefly followed by the short-lived apple rotary phone. not quite as successful. this is "viewpoint." >> john: good evening, i'm john fuglesang. thank you so much for joining us this evening. now for nearly 20 years despite massacres at schools theatres and malls and tens you of thousands of gun deaths overall there have been no new gun control bills signed into law. the last was in 1949, assault weapons ban supported by carter, reagan and ford and clinton. that expired after a decade. now it may change. senator dianne feinstein is leading the charge with a new bill she introduced at a press conference today.
>> of some us have been working to prevent gun violence for decades. together we are introducing legislation to help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities. >> john: the bill would ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 types of assault weapons currently available for purchase by civilians and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds. then there is what the bill doesn't do. >> it will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. we have tried to recognize legal hunting rights. we have tried to recognize legal defense rights. we have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon. no weapon is taken from anyone. >> john: and i'll take sound bytes fox news will never ever play for $5,000. although if you own an ak-47 with a 30-round clip and want to
sell it to your best buddy under the new law your friend would have a pass a tyrranical background check. they say the new bill won't keep guns out of the hands of mass killers like the sandy hook and aurora colorado, shooters. carolyn, herself a victim of gun violence disagrees. >> if you don't have the guns and the large magazines on the shelves, those who have done these horrific killings wouldn't be able to go into a gun store and just buy them. >> john: now, here's the good news. new polls including the latest gallup poll shows strong support for gun control laws to prevent school shootings. 91% of americans are for requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales. only 8% are against that. 60% favor a bill like senator feinstein's that would reinstate and strengthen an assault weapons ban. just over a third were against that. 54% back limiting sales of
ammunition magazines to ten rounds or less, although 43% still think that's okay. presumably maniacs should have the right to conduct massacres without having to inconveniently reload. now, some bad news. despite those numbers passing an assault weapons ban is considered an uphill struggle in the senate and a sure loss in the house. but some gun control legislation could become law. democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia, himself an nra supporter, told a local radio program he was working on a new bill to toughen background checks for most gun buyers. >> if you're going to be a gun owner, you should have a background and be able to pass a background check to be able to get that. with exceptions. the exceptions are their families immediate family member some sporting events. >> john: before we crack some jokes about what those sporting events might be, let's all recall this comment former president bill clinton made about gun owners last saturday. when he said do not patronize the passionate supporters of
your opponents by looking down your nose at them. very good advice for gun control advocates. for more on the gun control debate, i'm very pleased to be joined by the very reverend gary hall, dean of washington cathedral who participated today in senator feinstein's news conference. dean welcome and good evening. thank you for coming on "viewpoint." >> it is a real pleasure to be here. >> john: thank you sir. i understand you got some unfavorable reactions to your taking part in the news conference today. >> yeah, we got about 50 or so calls to my office, basically with people -- right after the press conference, people saying please reverend, i'm a christian and i also value my second amendment rights. and i felt that they must have been orchestrated by somebody. >> john: indeed. because no one's second amendment rights are being threatened here. no guns are being taken away from anyone. >> that's right. >> john: i guess they thought jesus was being metaphorical on that "turn the other cheek" part. you've spoken about gun violence from the pulpit but that the
preaching part of that work has come to an end. what did you mean by that and what's next? >> i preached right after the sandy hook shootings and i preached last sunday to a gigantic response. the cathedral is not a particularly progressive community. and episcopalians don't normally jump to their feet and applaud. but there's been a lot of support within our congregation and our larger faith community. but i feel that the point now is we need to move on to the actual organizing. used to say anybody can preach, blessed are those who can organize. we are now facing the real hard work as you've said, of actually trying to get some legislation crafted and moving forward. i think the church's role and the faith community's role across all of the traditions is really now to really mobilize support and keep this issue before the public as much as we can.
>> john: well, dean, you also said today that while everybody in washington seems to live in terror of the gun lobby, it is no match for the cross lobby. i thought that was a powerful statement. why are faith leaders so important to this struggle? >> for a couple of reasons. one of them is that we still represent -- although church attendance is declining in america, we still represent an awfully large segment of the american population. and so i think again with all of this -- all of the ways in which the nra and the gun manufacturers have been able to control the debate, i think we represent real, credible alternative voice to their voice. and then secondly, you know, religious people, whether you're a buddhist or a hindu or a muslim or a jew or a christian we are all people that understand suffering and think about suffering and we empathize with those who suffer. and all of our traditions call upon us to reach out to and to
really comfort those who are suffering. so we feel there's really a religious warrant, a moral warrant, for us to take this on. >> john: you must be very encouraged by the poll numbers we reported, that some majorities including some really substantial majorities are back new gun control laws. >> i am. i think two things. one of them is i'm very encouraged in the sense that this sandy hook shooting really was a moment where everybody in america, many people in america the majority of people in america had said this is enough. we just can't tolerate anymore of this gun violence. i am concerned that, especially white clergy like me, have not been visible enough or vocal enough with the epidemic of shootings in urban neighborhoods across america. my hometown of los angeles chicago, new york, here in washington. and we need, as faith communities, not only to care about suburban children and
suburban -- but we need to continue to care about and do a lot more to stop urban gun violence as well. >> john: dean, only about a minute left. last week on this program, i did a commentary about this growing movement of some gun fans who are christians who are citing luke 22:36 as justification for why jesus would have approved by assault weapons. sell your cloak and buy a sword. he means it metaphorically. he never has anyone buy a sword. how do you respond to people who use luke 22 as an argument that jesus would approve of having weapons designed to kill people? >> well, you know, i've been in this business a long time. that's the first time i've thought about that verse. >> john: check out twitter dean. you will be shocked. >> i'm sure i will be. obviously if you follow -- jesus is the man who said turn the other cheek. and essentially guided the hands
of violence. so it is really obscene to me that anyone would try to enlist jesus in support of the use of weapons of any kind. >> john: very reverend gary hall, dean of washington cathedral, thank you so much for your time tonight, sir. >> you're very welcome. >> john: reverend hall is one of the religious leaders backing this new gun control effort. 60 catholic leaders are challenging pro-life catholic lawmakers to show greater moral leadership and political courage when it comes to the threat of a sanctity of life posed by easy access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. sister simone campbell is one of the leaders and one of the heroes of the 2012 election season. she joins me now. good evening sister. welcome to "viewpoint." >> glad to be with you. >> john: how did this effort come together? >> right after sandy hook, we were so horrified by the shooting and devastated that many of us got together and said what can we do? how can we speak up?
and we were worried that it would get lost in the christmas rush. but we were so grateful to the administration when the president said no more! we've got to take a stand here. and when vice president biden took significant leadership in coming -- bringing people together to have conversations about what could we do we said this was different this time. we will make a change. we will make it never happen again, we hope. so we came together to write a letter that speaks of the sanctity of life and how we, as catholics, need to speak up for all aspects of life. it was really because of the president's commitment we thought this time it will be different. we will change. >> john: well, let's talk about activism then. how do you plan to challenge pro-life catholic lawmakers on gun control issues? >> well, clearly what we're going to do is speak to them directly. we network my organization, has tradition, we have members in just about every congressional
district and we are -- our members reach out to their representatives and say this is what catholic social teaching is. this is what matters. to our catholic represents, we can share the shared faith view. the president made it abundantly clear,, it is not just a faith view. it is a constitutional view, also. so with representatives who don't share our same faith what we're going to do is engage in conversation about the competing demands of the constitution. the fact is our rights to a peaceful assembly, our right to exercise our faith in houses of worship, the capacity for free expression are all being challenged by these guns that are so rampant and in the hands of few folks that create such havoc, such distress. that when you have competing constitutional demands is one
argument. the other is just from sharing a shared faith that we argue the principles of life and what we share in our faith. >> john: well, you know, millions of progressive christians muslims jews, atheists hindus, are routinely appalled to see self-professed christian leaders fighting so hard to protect the right of easy access to weapons that are designed to kill lots of people really fast. how should the church respond? if political catholic leaders like speaker of the house john boehner, follow the nra's line on gun control and not the moral teachings of their own church. >> well, it is a bit shocking because the conscience, how they can do that. i think one of the things we're seeing is that there is a strong element of fear in our society that generates this idea that people need weapons to protect themselves from others or from the government. and that is this fear that is eroding our capacity to have a democratic government. so we believe at network, if we
work on the aspects of fear, where we break down fear by getting to know our neighbors by knowing that we're in this together, that really by exercising what jesus says about coming together, about two or three being gathered together, about all of us sharing the resources that we have, that if we come together in community fear will be lessened and in lessening fear then, we lessen the desire to use these weapons that are so horrific. >> john: sister, how dare you be so unpatriotic and talk about faith. the u.s. conference of bishops spoke forcefully in favor of addressing gun violence. only a few seconds left, but do you think that might move the hearts of some of our conservative catholic friends who routinely boast about how pro-life they are? >> i sincerely hope so. that they hear the message that pro-life is more than being probirth. it is guarding the lives of all people! and that our bishops have spoken forcefully on that. i don't hold out 100% hope because they also spoke out
forcefully against the ryan budget. but i do believe that when it comes to the essential elements of life, that maybe they can hear this message. it's so direct. it's so imperative. it is at the heart of our faith. >> john: walking the walk, sister simone campbell, executive director of network and a leader in the movement to renew gun control in this country. sister, thank you so much. i hope you'll come back on the program. >> it is an honor to be with you. >> john: thank you. now, women will now be allowed in combat or rather we're finally admitting that women alreadyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
>> john: first the gays, now the girls. in a dramatic policy change, at the urging of the joint chiefs, defense secretary leon panetta lifted the ban on female service members in combat roles. wait! there is a ban on women in combat roles? that may come as a surprise to the 800 women injured in iraq or afghanistan or to the families of the 152 women killed thus far in the conflicts.
but technically position defined as combat roles a full 1/5 of active duty positions have been denied to women. beyond creating a larger talent pool from the military to select from women have a greater chance of advancing. most importantly, women injured in battle will no longer have to fight for proper benefits withheld from them because they were not officially in a combat role. joining me now is major m.j. haygarr, awarded the purple heart and the distinguished flying cross with a valor device for heroism and is involved in a lawsuit challenging the military's policy excluding women from many combat positions. major haygarr, what a pleasure it is to have you on the program tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> john: absolutely. what was your response when you heard about secretary panetta's decision and are you satisfied? >> i was very excited. i actually haven't seen an actual copy of the statement that he made. so i am unaware of whether or not it actually meets all of the stipulation of the lawsuit and
lifts all of the things that we were looking for. i believe that it has but my reaction is cautious optimism. i'm thrilled this comes from a recommendation from the joint chiefs of staff because that makes it you know, the joint chiefs of staff having the best interest of the military in mind recognizing it is damaging to the troops and to our mission. recommending that to leon panetta instead of the other way around is satisfying. >> john: that was the greatest surprise about it, it wasn't imposed by civilian leadership. why do you think it took so long to happen? women have been fighting alongside men on the front lines in iraq and afghanistan since the conflicts began. >> well, you know, women are standing up and saying something now. this lawsuit and the lawsuit filed right before colonel herring's lawsuit in may are difficult steps to take for servicemen or women because the military is and justifiably so where you do as you're told. you don't want to do anything that's viewed as subordinate. it is difficult to challenge
what you're being told. now we finally have had enough and we're taking the risk and we're receiving a lot of -- you know, a lot of support. but some negative comments and that kind of comes with the territory. we're willing to do it because it is so important. >> john: i've been heartened by how few negative comments there have been. there was an op-ed by a former marine named ryan smyth. i would like to read. >> portion of that if i could major. mr. smith writes despite the professionalism of marines, it would be distracts and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be neighbored in front of the opposite sex particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. in the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. the relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to viteale societal norms. my first response was unit cohesion, used to deny gay and
less lesbians the right to serve. >> a lot of the same arguments were used when we were integrates racially. when you're in a vulnerable situation whether that's hygiene or having bullets fly and you're watching your life flash before your eyes, any vulnerable position you're in, it is uncomfortable to have strangers next to you. that's the situation because women are in combat. we cannot accomplish the mission without the women there serving in combat. and because they've been denied the proper duty titles and the training opportunities to train alongside the men they're fighting with, they're relative strangers. the men don't have any idea what their abilities are because we didn't train together. we may have received the same training but in my case being a pilot, i got to train with the men that i served in combat with and the women i served in combat with. so i had the opportunity to see on the other side of that coin how men would react when they had to the opportunity to train with a woman see her abilities
respect her as a colleague and a warrior and not see her as a woman. but i was a pilot. so when i was in afghanistan and i was on my third turks i got shot down, i was wounded. so i was covered in blood. there was none of the mythical, you know -- i shouldn't say mythical, i'm sure it happens on rare occasions but none of the hypothetical overchivalrous behavior or uncomfortable because i was a female. i was warrior. i was shoulder to shoulder with spec ops. my gender never came up. >> john: just to clarify then, if you're in a combat zone, you're not terrified of potentially being exposed to someone else's poor hygiene on the battlefield. >> i can tell if you that were the case, i would not have lasted very long in the military. in the field i've been deployed out with guys, i've been deployed with delta force extreme conditions. i've been sent to training, survival training out in the woods for a month. it is absolutely not as big of
an issue as people try to make it out to be. >> john: how do you respond to the other criticisms about this decision that women aren't physically strong enough, it will turn into a situation where a more qualified man is rejected because of meeting quota of a women in a unit. is that as easily dismissed as it sounds? >> well, you know, people love to say that. i had people say that to my when i was in pilot training. i was there under some type of quota which was not true. i was in pilot training with another female and she ended up washing out. they showed her the door because she wasn't hacking it. they showed the door to the men who weren't hacking it. there should not be a quota system. despite the fact that sometimes that's the only way to get certain closed-minded people to accept women into the career field. i think quote das hurt us all. we should be going through the same courses just like i went through and that's why i was accepted as a colleague among my peers. >> john: major m.j. hagar
thank you for your service to this country on the battlefield and off. >> thank you. >> john: for more, i'm joined by representative loretta sanchez, the highest-ranking female member of the house armed services committee as well as cochair of the women in military caucus. what a pleasure to you have on the program. >> thank you john. it is a pleasure to be with you. >> john: what was your initial response when you heard about secretary panetta's decision? >> well, i was elated, actually. i've been fighting for this for several years. and i think it will be a great thing for america. any time that we can open up jobs and we can have equal opportunity toward that, i think it is a good thing for america. >> john: let me ask how significant is the fact that this request came from the joint chiefs and not the civilian leadership? >> it's interesting because you know the joint chiefs have seen over the last 11 years in particular with our women serving side by side with our men out there in iraq and afghanistan and in a true war
zone that they have come to rely on these women and these women can do the job. and these artificial barriers of saying we can't have our women in combat positions really was time for it to be melted away. it is really great to see that the generals actually asked for this. >> john: i agree. when you consider the u.s. military is one of the leading proponents of affirmative action throughout court system, it is only fitting that they seek pay equity for female service members. how are your colleagues on the house armed services committee reacting? >> i think a lot of them are -- i think it's now time to do this. of course, some are a little hesitant. they don't -- they want to study this and see how this has happened and why they're asking for it. i continue to tell them as i have over the last four or five years that 51% of the population in the united states is -- are women. the population is women. that we have had women serving
in positions on the front line, if you will, because there is no front line. everything's the front line when we're in iraq and afghanistan. that they have performed. that they're smart. that they're diligent. that they're well trained. that they can do this type of work. and so, you know, a lot of them are -- i think now we'll take a closer look whereas before, they might have said oh, you know, we'll never see this. now, it is right in front of us. it's going to begin -- it is going to become implemented. we'll see it over the course of the next three years really women take a hold being in the full fight in the united states military. >> john: i'm sure you've heard some complaints from some members of congress but it seems like there's really been very little pushback from major legislators. i'm surprised at how little outcry there is. it makes me wonder if that's the case, why did it take so long for this to happen? >> well, i have to tell you again, we've got our own real
petrie dish, if you will. we've seen this happen. we've seen it over the last 11 years. women in command performances throughout in war. so i think the generals in particular and other officers within the military have seen that they can perform. that they can perform to the pressure of war et cetera. and so i think the fact that the generals and the admiral said hey, it's time that we do this. let's figure out how we can do this. they have always said our generals and our admirals time after time have said, you know, women are doing great in the positions we have them in. so you know, now is the time to open them up, i think. >> john: amen. you mentioned three years. how will this decision be implemented? because women obviously are not going to be immediately put in combat roles. is it going to be a very incremental process? is there still a significant road ahead? >> well, you know, that will be
dependent on each of the services and each of the moss or the actual categories that women have been artificially kept from. there may still be some categories where the requirements, maybe the women or a majority of the women who might want to, may not make it. as i said to somebody before, not every woman makes a good soldier but not every man makes a good soldier either. there will be some women who are outstanding, who are physically capable of doing the really toughest jobs in the military. and if they want you and they qualify and meet the standards then i think we'll see them in there. but i think over the next three years, what we're going to see is an implementation of it and some moss, some class will be opened up sooner than others. we also have accommodations and the cost of retooling, if you will just as we did with the submarine experience where we had to say okay, how do we do
this? do we have women supporters? do we have them in the same quarters. i think every arena we'll have to take a look and see what they're going to do. >> john: considering the heroic female service members who have been in harm's way for so long, it is gratifying to see the military brass catch up with reality. and i thank you for all of your work in this effort. congresswoman loretta sanchez of california. thank you for joining me. >> thank you john. excited for our women but more importantly, excited for america. >> john: amen. my guest panel, the hosts from this week, we'll discuss the pro gun movement called what would
while celebrating george bush's record which is rare because he tragically lost that one night. celebrating awol from the texas national guard. the republicans succeeded in keeping senator kerry from the white house but now that kerry's confirmation will leave open his senate seat, the g.o.p. suddenly loves kerry and to them, his service in vietnam doesn't quite suck the way they once said it did. you blew it my republican friends. you know you would have kicked bush to the curb in 2004 and avoided a big mess. john kerry would have been elected president inherited w.'s time bomb of costly unpaid four wars. he would have been thrown out in 2008 and you guys would now be enjoying visits to the west wing of huckabee's megachurch. but no! you allowed john kerry to be slandered by the swift voters and now, because of it, your party has about as much chance of gaining national office as lance armstrong does of passing a urine test.
but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections tuberculosis lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness.
[ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. desmond tutu said a quote that is one of my favorite quotes. "we are tied together in a web of humanity. i am a person only through you. i can only be a person only through you." that really resonates me and drives my work. the world is becoming an incredibly connected place. mobile phones are really driving that connection. at kiva, we run an internet marketplace. people can lend to other people for the purpose of starting a small business, going to school or a variety of other good causes. you can go to kiva.org and you can see pictures and profiles of people from over sixty countries all across the world.
you can lend them as little as $25. if they are successful, they will pay you back. dear rixi, you're a honduran immagrant. you're coming to the us, you have an idea to start, you know, a women's cosmetics store or a you're going to need a lot of things, ya know, to pay the rent, permits inventory, advertising, marketing so that adds up quite a bit. you're going to need tens of thousands of dollars to start a small busines. there is ten million-plus people completely left out of the formal finical system. banks don't lend to people like that at all. there is a lot of opportunity to decrease unemployment, provide employment, provide economic opportunity and raise our standard of living by investing in small business. our hearts are an incredibly powerful thing. good technology can help amplify this power and create an
incredibly powerful force that can spread to every country in the world. >> john: last weekend was martin luther king's birthday. as well as the inauguration of our president. you would have to be tone-deaf to hold a national gun appreciation day that very weekend, right? that's exactly what a group of pro-gunned a advocates did. one -- not the white supremacist one, i'm talking about political media, they have a new campaign called what would django do. the film where every right wing white man is being portrayed as evele is being used to gain support for their cause. not only is their premise that army black folks would have prevented slavery absurd, it is
also based on a film that's kind of fast and loose with a tone historic accuracy. >> this is the tarantino -- you have the kkk in the movie before the kkk even existed. they didn't need to wear hoods to be racist when they had slavery. [ laughter ] >> john: joining me now to discuss this and other issues are three of the hosts of this week in blackness radio on twib. l. joy williams who hosts twib in the morning. elon james white comedian extraordinaire and managing director of this week in blackness and air rond rand freeman, host of we nerd hard. welcome. i'm pleased you're here with us. let's get started on this. using the film "django unchained" to get african-americans behind a pro-gun, anti-gun control movement. is this as insane and vulgar as it sounds? >> definitely. i mean i've heard of groups trying to use popular culture
and movies to sort of attract attention to their campaigns and issues. i do it for clients all the time. but this is just insane. you know, to try to bring together african-americans and say you should have guns and it would have prevented slavery no. >> john: air remarks let me ask you. you have right wing white guys saying if we had guns back then, there wouldn't be a slavery problem despite the fact that slavery -- >> that's so ridiculous. >> john: slavery was perpetuated by right wing white guys. where do we begin? >> i don't even know how to begin. i would say this. we use the term vulgar. it's quick. if you want to gather up a bunch of black black people in your head from the position of being a right wing white person, how easy is it -- this movie where the black guy is killing the white people. that's all you know and all the black people know, maybe about
15 minutes of brainstorming. they probably went out for a walk to mcdonald's and already had an advertising campaign. >> john: there is a white person who kills white people but he's german. elon? >> sir, i can't even express to you the ridiculousness of this because one, it was literally illegal for black folks to have guns because they were so afraid that we would stop slavery. so you're literally ignoring the entire history of america. slavery, man you could have just killed a bunch of white people. really? you're supporting this because you do realize that if it was that time, you would be the first person to say you all can't have guns, right? >> john: i love how much debate this film has triggered in our society. there has, of course, been a lot of criticism to the use of the "n" word to the historical inaccuracy to the violence which joe scarborough blames this on newtown shooting even though it happened before this film
opened. you guys talk about this a lot on the radio. are any of the critiques valid or do you think it is people -- just talking about slavery with outrage that might possibly be misplaced? >> see the thing is that slavery in general is the topic that when you discuss it in america, everyone is -- african-americans are -- it is our history. people experience that. and you can still talk to people, you know, who their mothers were enslaved. my grandmother she knows that her mother was enslaved. so it is personal for us. then you have america as a whole that says we don't want to talk about that. that was a long time ago. we're over that. get over it. so every one is prepped. we need to have the conversation continually until we can get a conversation and have a healing conversation about this because it is a scab in our country that we have not healed yet. >> john: on a cinematic level this isn't "gone with the wind." the most anti-slavery film in
terms of the institution ever released by a major hollywood studio. >> here's the thing though. it's not -- it's beyond not accurate because a lot of people are saying oh, it's not exactly accurate. forget the amount of accuracy. it is based on a land of myths. the slavery of the that movie didn't exist. this didn't happen. and he often yells about the idea of authenticity. we had on dr. blair kelly from nc state. you want all of the authenticity of the violence and the "n" word but you don't want the authenticity of how slavery worked. you couldn't call a historian to say does any of this make sense because he didn't do that. on top of it, the conversation around this is problematic because it is not really even dealing -- you're right. it is not "gone with the wind" but it's not a slavery documentary. >> john: not at all. >> it is not real. it was -- the idea of two slaves worth $5,000 which nowadays
would be around $100,000. yeah, that's right. white slave owners were throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars away randomly. >> john: only a couple of seconds. shouldn't we be surprised about this that the last film by this director featured juice killing germans? >> quentin tarantino he learned everything about being a big film his entire nerd. i would argue his concept of history. we're holding him to a weird standard. he's just kind of a film fanatic. so i don't know why we're expecting someone who has his background to just all of a sudden be able to call upon history like that. he literally does not -- it is not -- he doesn't know. >> john: it doesn't seem like he's interested. he's making a movie about movies. we gotta take a break for a second. my panel and i will look at some abortion arguments which might
induce morning sickness. first, joy behar. >> joy: thanks, john. next on "say anything," it is day three of lip gate. i'll ask pop music icon lindsey lauper what she thinks of the controversy. >> what do you think about the lip-synching? that beyonce has been accused of. was she or wasn't she? >> i don't even care. >> joy: you don't care. >> joy: plus '90s rapper vanilla ice talks about his makeover show. our panel weighs in on the latest kardashian controversy. more
>> john: wherever you stand on the divisive issue of abortion, if your views on abortion don't make sense, then you don't make sense. new mexico state representative katherine brown proposed a bill that would seriously charge rape victims with tampering with evidence. if they got pregnant during an assault and later terminated the pregnancy of their rapist's
child. i guess people can't test an aborted fetus's dna although fetuses do have dna. it would be considered evidence. they have almost nothing else but dna. brown says she meant to charge the rapist instead. this law may need to go for a longer gestation period before it is viable. fetuses aren't really people if they cost a nonprofit any money. this comes in a lawsuit after doctors in colorado didn't save unborn twins in a catholic hospital. catholic health initiatives says the family can't sue because feet -- fetuses aren't legally people. it is still a sin to get an abortion if you can't afford people. l. joy williams, elon james white, air rond rand freeman. folks, why do our anti-abortion friends keep bringing up rape? are they addicted to losing
lecs? >> i have a message for everyone who wants to have a conversation about rape and abortion and it is not your immediate situation. it is not you having a conversation with the people that are deciding whether or not to have an abortion or being raped. stop talking. how about that. stop talking! this is not your issue. because these things are stupid. i meant to -- a legislator -- oh i didn't mean the woman who experienced this tragedy. i meant the rapist. even though she did something -- she shouldn't do, she should maybe be charged. >> john: she's now saying she wanted to punish the victim. she now says she wants to punish the victim. >> the original bill they were trying to put down said that anyone who got rid of like had an abortion, getting rid of evidence, hence that person was in trouble. it was about the abortion. if you had an abortion or you
coerced someone to have an abortion. if i said hey, you should have an abortion, then it was on me. it was about abortion way more than attacking the person who actually did the raping. or committed the incest. so right now what you're seeing is someone retreating from blowback. as soon as you say that, you're like really? you're telling me you want to charge someone who just went through rape or incest? are you serious? >> john: it seems to me the more issue divides us as a people, we don't have an abortion problem. we have an unwanted pregnancy problem. if we can get people to agree on that and then we would have a start to a solution. is there any solution to this destructive conflict? >> well, we can't have conversations about the solution of unwanted pregnancy because idiots keep bringing up the conversation of you shouldn't have an abortion. if we put that to the table. we all have divisive issues. people have personal beliefs on whether or not they believe --
they want to have an abortion or should have the right to have an abortion. that's a personal belief on that. we should not be legislating that. we should have -- every woman should have the choice to decide what they want to do with their own body. then let's have a conversation, a real legislative conversation about unwanted pregnancies and how we can prevent them. we can't have that conversation as a nation because idiots have loud voices. >> you're so reasonable. >> john: let me take it on to a different topic then. this is a bit bewildering as well. the naacp is fighting new york's ban on large sugary soft drinks. whether you agree with the ban or not, the naacp is saying the ban hurts minority-owned small businesses and reduces freedom of choice in low income communities. there are those who would say the naacp might want to direct their energies toward fighting obesity problems. fighting diabetes or health issues. what side do you guys take on
this? >> it's interesting. i'm going to -- she's actually the president of an naacp chapter. that will be interesting there. i'll tell you this. when you stop for a moment and look at it, whether or not you have an opinion on this, whether or not people should be ingesting that, whether or not this is an overreach of government to say that, whatever, let's walk away from that. the ban doesn't actually affect large businesses. like 7-eleven so basically you're saying hey we're putting the rule down but if you're a big corporation, you don't have to deal with this. but you small businesses that actually might -- this was really important, you have to be forced to deal with this. on top of it, there is a certain amount of privilege when you push that down and say that hey listen, you don't need that, okay. let me tell you what to do. don't buy the big, sugary drinks. you might stretch this for the next two weeks in your family because you have three kids and this is what you use. forget that. you don't get to do that. to actually blame -- to claim naacp is in the pocket of the corporations is a little bit
problematic. >> more than problematic. as elon pointed out i'm a president of a local naacp in brooklyn. you know, one thing, we don't have permanent enemies and permanent friends. at the same time that right now we're fighting -- brought this lawsuit and fighting against the stress this brings on minority business owners in the city of new york, you know people who suggest that we should do something about obesity, they should probably go to our web site and see the that we do on obesity. and what elon brought up is true. why pass a law -- you want to ban the sodas and the limit and what size they are then it needs to apply to everyone. and naacp is about fairness and this is unfair. >> john: that's mike bloomberg, the big government republicans messing with our freedoms. my panel will stay with me after the break. we'll talk briefly about hillary clinton for a party that wants to live in the past, our republican fri
>> john: what was your overall impression of secretary clinton in the benghazi hearings this week? >> hillary clinton is the boss. >> there you go. >> john: thank you for this in-depth -- do you think that we saw rand paul begin his candidacy for president and hillary win this week? [ laughter ] >> that's a good one! >> that's good. >> john: it is really interesting because after the dust settled from the hearings with secretary clinton on the benghazi attacks, i was left with two thoughts. first, the only way the g.o.p. could further exploit the libya deaths for political gain would be to physically shoot benghazi t-shirts out of a nascar gun and second, this is our most terrifying look yet at a public health issue affecting washington, d.c. republican airborne amnesia. see, way back in the foggy mist of 2001, the g.o.p. told us it was treason to ever criticize a president following a terrorist
attack. so how is it possible that in 2012, the democratic president should be impeached for not acting quickly enough when our overseas consulate was attacked while in 2001, a g.o.p. p.o.t.u.s. who sits numbly in a nursery school classroom as a nation is under attack is somehow more manly than john wayne free basing androgel? the brain that accepts this has the attention span like the guy from memento. if you're not convinced the party of reagan has trouble recalling things, remember in the '90s when hillary clinton was demonized for eight years but then once she became a senator and secretary of state they couldn't stop celebrating how awesome she was. they've loved her for 12 years. rupert murdoch himself hosted a fund-raiser for her before her presidential campaign. well today my friends, it is like the right wing media that loved her for the past 12 years stepped into a time machine. today's "new york post" is more 1990s than a gin blossoms faith no more mix tape. that's the same paper owned by the same guy that gave